It\'s not moral. War can never be a moral act, not even as a "last resort." In the best case, war is a necessary evil. What is the moral difference between a crusade and a jihad?
A war on Iraq would not qualify as a just war, conforming to a set of principles that have evolved among civilized societies. A just cause should not be confused with a just war.
A war on Iraq for the purpose of "regime change" would not be a legal war under international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Bombing of civilian populations is a form of terrorism even more abhorrent than low-tech terrorist street bombings of innocents. This has been so ever since the first instance of "strategic" bombing (coincidentally, in Iraq, in 1917 by the British), up to the devastating bombing of Afghanis in our efforts to destroy Al Qaeda, and our continuing bombing raids into Iraq over the past ten years.
"Preemptive war" is anti-American. The concept was made infamous by Adolf Hitler, who claimed his aggression was necessary, to prevent attacks on Germany.
Killing fleeing conscripts in a "turkey shoot" like the one that ended the 1991 Gulf War, another likely feature of a new war in Iraq, is un-American, and will certainly take a postwar psychological toll on the combatants who participate in such repugnant acts, and on their families.
War without a new, specific U.N. resolution based upon evidence of Saddam\'s continued non-compliance with U.N. demands would undermine the U.N. and the ideal of a world system based on lawful principles.
War now would reaffirm ugly precedents in U.S. Constitutional law. The U.S. Congress has earned disrespect for its abdication of responsibility for declaring war. The shame is mitigated only by the fact that Bush has not yet rendered their abdication effective, by waging war without a declaration.
War always has corrosive effects on Constitutional rights. It brings out the worst in presidents, vice-presidents, and attorneys general who are tempted to take Nixonian shortcuts.
Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, is the homeland of Osama and most of his 9-11 suicide squad: "The U.S. warmly supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam\'s government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq," points out the conservative National Review, in an antiwar editorial.
Internationally, too, PR techniques, propaganda, and intelligence operations are replacing diplomacy and genuine culture-to-culture outreach in our dealings with other nations, a process war will accelerate.
War will also accelerate our drift toward empire, increasingly the subject of popular discourse, cover articles in magazines, learned journal articles.
In a war on Iraq we\'ll lose friends all around the world. That\'s true generally. Specifically:
War on Iraq would have serious consequences in Turkey, where sympathy for 9-11 has faded and antiwar protests reinforce polls that show not only opposition to war on Iraq, but also that only 30% support America\'s war on terrorism.
War plans are alienating the French public, where 75% believe that "the main reason the United States would go to war with Iraq would be \'because the U.S. wants to control Iraqi oil.\'" A L\'Humanité poll published Jan. 17 tracks antiwar sentiment: "Asked by the CSA polling agency whether they would support US intervention in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, 66 percent of those who responded said they were opposed, up from 58 percent in a poll conducted in August." We read reports this morning (Jan. 21) that France will not only oppose immediate military action, but will seek "to mobilize the European Union to avert a war against Iraq."
The British are not with us. In the wake of massive demonstrations in the U.K. (200,000 in London last September, a survey found that 69 percent of Britons felt that Mr. Blair was too supportive of US policy toward Iraq." A Jan. 15 BBC poll asked, "Has the government proved the case for a war with Iraq? 81% said no. Just 19% said yes." A poll reported today (Jan. 21) "shows that opposition to a war has risen steadily from 37% in October to 47% now." "British military leaders question mission and ethics " of a preemptive war, the Guardian reports (Feb. 5).
Pakistanis are against war on Iraq. In a recent poll, 70% of the Pakistani public said they hold an unfavorable view of our country. A Yankee war would fuel the fires of Islamist extremists there who, should an unstable government fall, could inherit Pakistan\'s nuclear weapons.
War will create new terrorists. "9-11" has been described as an unintended consequence of the 1991 Gulf War. Certainly, experts agree, Osama has little genuine interest in the plight of Palestinians or other Mideast issues. Osama\'s stated casus belli and recruitment tool was the U.S. violation of sacred Saudi soil.
Arms inspectors are saying that Iraqi officials have granted completely open access to every site, are permitting the questioning of Iraqi scientists, and are otherwise in compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441.
A war with Iraq would be very costly. "Informal estimates by congressional staff and Washington think tanks of the costs of an invasion of Iraq and a postwar occupation of the country have been in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion. If the fighting is protracted, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein blows up his country\'s oil fields, most economists believe the indirect costs of the war could be much greater," according to various reports.
Occupation of Iraq would be a disaster. "You ought to see a therapist if you want to occupy Iraq," says political scientist Charles A. Kupchan "It\'s just the last place I would want to set up shop. The whole region is deeply anti-American. They\'ll probably be dancing in the streets for 24 to 48 hours and then they\'ll take up sniper positions. That\'s where I think things could go wrong with barracks exploding, etc. If that were to happen, at the end of the day it would cause us to pull in our horns and cause Americans to say, \'What have we gotten ourselves into?\'"
Postwar trials will prove embarrassing for American officials and corporate executives, as we hear testimony from Iraqi officials whose war crimes were committed under U.S. tutelage – in the 1980\'s when Saddam was our ally/client fighting Iran.
The rationale for preemptive strikes and the war against terror gives the Chinese a free hand to "preempt" "terrorists" in their own sphere of interest.
It gives the Russians a rationale to deal preemptively with Chechens and other dissidents.
It gives the Turks a precedent in dealing with their Kurds.
In fact, it so violates established precedents and principles of international law that it sets back the progress of the past 60 years of U.N. development.
The war policy is tainted by politics. War hype was postponed until the weeks immediately prior to the November 2002 elections. The explanation from White House chief of staff Andrew Card: "From a marketing point of view, you don\'t introduce new products in August."
U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saddam has been dominated by a clique of hawks (the Wolfowitz-Perle-Cheney "cabal" in the Pentagon), whose agenda has not been publicly aired and subjected to evaluation or Congressional debate.
Brent Scowcroft has argued against precipitous military action in Iraq.
"Already, the preparations for war are distracting Washington from the task of rebuilding Afghanistan," as Michael Massing writes in The Nation.
And from the ongoing violence in the Middle East.
War is also providing cover for political abuse here at home. When licenses to administration cronies for drilling in Alaska can be wrapped up in a "patriotic" agenda, we know we\'re near the bottom of the barrel.
The plight of the cities, and the economic problems afflicting all 50 states, also take a back seat when the country goes to war.
War will evoke massive antiwar rallies, further straining citizens\' relationships with local authorities, and further draining city budgets.
The talk of a "perpetual war," so reminiscent of Orwell\'s novel, 1984, suggests a willingness to accept a long-term suspension of civil rights, looser reins on Federal prosecutors, and more secret tribunals.
A "perpetual war" would also tend to institutionalize paramilitary practices on the part of police departments who will have to develop new routines for handling civil disobedience.
Despite claims that they are stalling or lying, in fact Saddam\'s officials appear to be complying with every request from U.N. inspectors.
There is no evidence justifying a war. The Bush administration has claimed to have it but they have not produced it – either to make their case to the American public or (as far as we know) to guide U.N. arms inspectors who have asked for it. Only this week (Jan. 14) did chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix announce that some materials "from several sources" have become available.
So far, the evidence formally presented has been a 50-page dossier British Prime Minister Tony Blair, presumably fortified if not supplied by U.S. intelligence, which was treated disdainfully by liberal and conservative critics alike: "While there was limited support for the prime minister\'s position that \'the threat [presented by Saddam Hussein] is serious and current,\' most commentators felt that the dossier failed to put forward a compelling case for military action in Iraq. Unusually in Britain\'s adversarial journalistic culture, feelings about the dossier were even strong enough to unite editorial writers from different ends of the political spectrum."
